The document outlines various principles of statutory interpretation, including the meanings of specific words, the use of conjunctive and disjunctive terms, and the implications of changes in wording. It discusses the significance of legal fictions, mandatory versus directory provisions, and the construction of general and specific terminologies within statutes. Additionally, it delves into legal maxims and doctrines that guide the interpretation of laws and the importance of presumption of constitutionality in legislative review.

1. Interpretation Of Statutes.
1

2. Same word same Meaning.
• When same meaning is sought to be conveyed, it is presumed that same word will
be used therefore it is generally assumed that when the same word is used the
same meaning is intended.
• If the Congress has borrowed a term in the statute under consideration then the
term shall be construed to have all the meanings assigned to it as it was assigned
to it in the statute from which it is borrowed.
• This principle works very well with the statutes in pari Materia.
• Case Law: Jmaiff v. The Grand Forks Rural Fire Protection District, 1990 CanLII
242 (BC).
2

3. Conjunctive & Disjunctive.
• The word ‘and’ is normally Conjunctive and the word ‘Or’ is normally Disjunctive. Ordinarily ‘or’
does not mean ‘and 'and vice versa. But at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the
manifest intent of the legislature as disclosed from the context.
• In conjunctive statutes describing the elements of a crime, for example, every single item on the list
must be proved for someone to be found guilty of that crime. In disjunctive statutes, proof of any one
of the elements is sufficient.
• Case Law: Kamta Prasad Aggarwal v. Executive Engineer.
3

4. Use of Different words.
• Just as the use of the same word implies that the same meaning was intended,
it is a natural corollary that a change of wording is an indication of change of
intention.
• When different words are used in the same statute, presumption that they are
not used in the same sense.
• Example – “at the end of the previous year” and “in the course of such
previous year” appearing in section 23A of Income Tax Act,1922 were
interpreted differently.
• Case Law: Shri Ishar Alloy Steels ltd v. Jayaswalas Neco Ltd. (JT 2001(3)
SC 114)
4

5. Rule of last antecedent.
• Generally speaking, qualifying words restrict or modify only the
words or phrases to which they are immediately associated. They do
not qualify words or phrases which are distantly or remotely located.
• This rule of legal hermeneutics is commonly known as the doctrine of
last antecedent.
• The maxim expressive of this rule is ‘ad proximum antecedens fiat
relatio nisi impediatur sententia’ or relative words refer to the nearest
antecedents, unless the context otherwise requires.
5

6. Example & Case Law.
• Violation of the legal doctrine may also change the meaning of the
statement when a comma is inserted in a list.
• Consider this duo:
1. Missing after the burglary were two rings, and a bracelet worth Rs. 50,000.
2. Missing after the burglary were two rings and a bracelet worth Rs. 50,000.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and Ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1910)
6

7. Non-Obstante Clause.
• It is a Latin word meaning “Notwithstanding”.
• The notwithstanding clause in a statute makes the provision
independent of other provisions contained in the law, even if the other
provisions provide to the contrary.
• A non obstante clause is usually used in a provision to indicate that
that provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in
the provision mentioned in such non obstante clause.
• Іn case there іs any inconsistency or a departure between the non-
obstante clause and another provision, one of the objects of such a
clause іs to indicate that іt іs the non-obstante clause which would
prevail over the other clause.
7

8. Legal Fiction.
• A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts which is then
used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule. The
concept is used almost exclusively in common law jurisdictions.
• A classic example of a legal fiction is that the English courts do not
"create" new law but merely "declare" the common law that has
existed since time immemorial.
• An assumption that something occurred or someone or something
exists which, in fact, is not the case, but that is made in the law to
enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it.
• In order to do justice, the law will permit or create a legal fiction.
8

9. Limitations to the use of Legal Fiction.
• A legal fiction should not be employed to defeat law or result in
illegality: it has been always stressed that a legal fiction should not be
employed where it would result in the violation of any legal rule or
moral injunction.
• Legal fiction should operate for the purpose for which it was created
and should not be extended beyond its legitimate field.
• Legal fiction should not be extended so as to lead to unjust results.
• There cannot be a fiction upon a fiction.
9

10. MANDATORY AND
DIRECTORY PROVISIONS.
• A Mandatory enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly but it is
sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially.
• The general rule is that non compliance of mandatory provisions
results in nullification of act. There is an exception to this rule. If the
requirements are for the interest of particular person or authority,
even though mandatory can be waived if not in public interest.
Whereas breach of directory provisions do not entail any invalidity.
10

11. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-
COMPLIANCE.
• In case of mandatory provisions, nullification is provided as
consequences for failure to comply with statutory requirement.
• For instance in case of Limitation Act, the period prescribed for
bringing a legal proceeding is mandatory, non compliance of the
provision will lead to dismissal of the legal proceeding.
• Non compliance of directory provisions would not furnish any cause
of action or ground of challenge .
11

12. USE OF PARTICULAR LANGUAGE.
• Negative words are usually mandatory. “Not less than three months
notice” indicates a clear mandatory provision.
• Affirmative Words may be used to exclude all that is not covered.
For instance, the Transfer Of Property Act,1882 which prescribes
formalities for various modes of transfer(sale, mortgage, lease, gift)
limits transfer to the nature mentioned.
• The formalities prescribed for making contracts or transfer are
generally held to be imperative otherwise they would defeat the very
object of the provision. Thus they are held to be mandatory.
12

13. USE OF PARTICULAR LANGUAGE.
• The word “shall” is generally mandatory but it is sometimes not so
interpreted if the context or the intention otherwise demands. In M.P.
v. Azad Bharat Finance Co. it was held that shall is not always
mandatory , it depends upon the context in which the word occurs and
the other circumstances.
• The word “may” indicates a choice of action or discretion. Thus it is
directory provision.
• The word “must” doubtlessly a word of command.
13

14. USE OF SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGIES.
• The words “shall be lawful” may be used to confer a new jurisdiction
on an authority and they are bound to exercise it.
• The words “have regard to” are to be construed in relation to the
context and the subject matter. It was held that if court is enjoined to
have regard to certain provisions and no regard is paid to it then trial is
not in accordance with law.
14

15. USE OF SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGIES.
• The words, as it ‘thinks fit', 'thinks necessary’ or ‘considers
necessary’ also confers a discretion but the discretion is to be
exercised within the frontiers of the power conferred.
• The words “shall have power” indicates that something may be done
which prior to it could not be done.
15

16. STATUTES CONFERRING POWERS.
• When a statute confers power to be exercised subject
to fulfilment of certain conditions if expressed or
implied conditions are mandatory, the exercise of
power in breach of it would be illegal.
• When a statute confers certain private rights, benefits
or privileges and certain requirements are laid down as
preliminary conditions for acquisition, then they are
mandatory.
16

17. STATUTES IMPOSING PUBLIC DUTY.
• It’s a Mandatory Provision when a public duty is imposed by a statute
and such statute lays down the manner in which and the time in the
duty shall be performed.
• When an act requires a public officer or authority to act within a
stipulated time the expiry of the period without anything more will
confer no right unless the statute confers a right.
• In Chet. Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corp. of Delhi, AIR(1981), it was
held that an application must be disposed of within particular time.
Expiry of period does not lead to grant of permission.
17

18. Construction of General Words.
• This topic can be divided into 5 parts:
1) Generalia verba sunt generalita intelligenda.
2) Noscitur a Sociis.
3) Ejusdem generis.
4) Words of rank.
5) Reddendo singular singulis.
18

19. Generalia verba sunt generalita intelligenda.
• This means General words are to be understood generally.
• Unless there is something in the Act itself to show that the
intention of the legislature was that they must be given a
restrictive meaning.
• General words of common use have received variable
construction according to the context in which they are placed.
• Eg :- Business, family, person.
 Case Laws.
1) Town Investments Ltd. V. Department of Environment (1977) 1
AII ER 813 p, 819 (HL)
2) Narin v St. Andrews University (1909) AC 147
3) Henrietta Muir Edwards v. A.G. of Canada AIR (1930) P C 120 19

20. Noscitur a Sociis.
• This is a Latin phrase which means to know the meaning by
association or according to the context.
• The meaning of doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the
meaning of the words associated with it.
• But where the intent of the legislature is clear and unambiguous the
rule of noscitur a sociis has no application.
 Case laws
1) The State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [AIR (1960) SC
610].
2) CBI v. Braj Bhusan Prasad [AIR (2001) SC 4014 : (2001) 9 SCC
432].
20

21. Ejusdem generis.
• The words literally means of same class or kind or nature.
• This rule is also known as Lord Tenterden’s rule.
• This rule says that where words of specific meaning are followed
by general words the general words will be construed as being
limited to persons or things of the same general kind as those
mentioned by the specific words.
• This rule tries to resolve the conflict between general and specific
words. It does so by restricting the meaning of general words to
things of the same kind as the preceding particular words.
Case Law : LIC of India v. Retired LIC Officers Association.
(2008) 3 SCC 321.
21

22. Words of rank.
• The rule of words of rank is analogous to the other rules on the topic
of general words following more specific ones.
• When words descriptive of persons or things are used in descending
order by rank, general words at the end of the list do not include
persons or things of a higher rank than the highest named, if there be
any lower species to which they can apply.
• For example duty imposed on copper, brass, pewter and tin and on all
other metals not enumerated would not include the precious metals of
gold and silver.
• A statute which punished cruelty to any “horse, mare, ass, ox, cow,
sheep was held not to include bull ; not that a bull is regarded as
superior to a horse but he is superior to all the animals mentioned in
that part of the provision which begins “ox, cow,” etc. 22

23. Reddendo Singula Singulis.
• Where there are several antecedents and consequents in sentence, this
rule says that each words or phrase is to be linked where it belongs.
• Example:- “I device all my real and personal property to A.”
“If anyone shall draw or load any sword or gun.”
• Precisely it says that if the high sounding phrase were put in simple
terms it only means that words should be read distributively in the
sense produced by using the English word ‘respectively’ whenever
necessary, or ‘as’ applicable.
23

24. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius/
Expressum facit cessare taciturn.
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius :- A Latin maxim that means “the
express mention to one thing implies the exclusion of another”.
• Expressum facit cessare taciturn :- The maxim that means “what is
expressed makes what is implied to cease”.
• Express mention puts an end to tacit implication.
• Both maxims- same meaning –different wordings.
• Its not of legal origin but rather a product of “logic & common sense”
• Caution in its application.
• Its only an auxiliary rule- neither conclusive nor of universal
application.
• The maxim does not apply, where the law-makers intention are clear. 24

25. Casus Omissus.
• Casus Omissus means a case or contingency or point unprovided for.
• It cannot be supplied to the court of law , whether the omission is
intentional or inadvertent is no concern of the court.
• A court can interpret existing words but cannot supply missing words.
• If there is a gap in the statute, it is to be filled in by the legislature &
not the court.
• The court must have a look at the entire enactment before applying the
doctrine of Casus Omissus.
25

26. GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON
DEROGANT.
• The above maxim means that a general law does not abrogate (repeal,
alter, derogate) an earlier special one by mere implication without any
indication of a particular intention to do so.
• It is presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular
cases which have been already provided for by the special act.
• It is also known as the rule of implied exception.
• CASE LAW: Mary Seward v. Owner of the Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App
cas 59.
26

27. Reading Down A Provision.
• The courts may read down a provision where it is necessary to suppress the
mischief and effectuate the object of the statute, or to strike down a legislation
which is ultra vires the constitution or the enabling statute, or to uphold a
provision where it could be saved by reading it down.
• The idea behind this seems to bring about just results by meaningful interpretation.
• It is like a rule of harmonious construction in a different name.
• The rule is used for the limited purpose of making a particular provision workable.
• Case Law: P. Asokan v. Western India plywoods Ltd., Cannanore (AIR 1987 KER
103)
27

28. Anomaly, Absurdity, Hardship, Redundancy,
Repugnancy.
• The meaning of these words are as follows:
1. Anomaly -Deviation or Departure from the normal or common
order, form, or rule.
2. Absurdity-Extremely unreasonable, incongruous, or inappropriate.
3. Hardship-A thing or circumstance that causes ongoing or persistent
suffering or difficulty.
4. Redundancy-The state of being not or no longer needed or useful.
5. Repugnancy-An inconsistency or opposition between two or more
clauses of the same deed, contract, or statute.
28

29. PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
29

30. Presumption of Constitutionality: What it
means?
• Unlike most presumptions, the presumption of constitutionality is not
a rule of evidence. Normally, presumptions are evidentiary rules that
require certain facts to be presumed when other facts have been
proven. Such presumptions shift the burden of producing evidence to
the party seeking to rebut them. More infrequently, a presumption also
may shift the burden of persuasion.
• For instance, the common-law presumption of the legitimacy of a
child born during wedlock, which may be rebutted only by clear and
convincing evidence, effectively shifts the burden of persuasion to the
opposing party.
30

31. • The presumption of constitutionality, by contrast, does not deal with
factual proof, because constitutionality is a question of law, not of fact.
Nor is it truly a rule of construction, because a different rule dictates
that "'where constitutional questions are raised, [a court] will liberally
construe a statute to save it from constitutional infirmities."' Rather, it
is a method of allocating and heightening the burden of legal
persuasion, requiring the party challenging the statute to make a legal
argument so convincing that unconstitutionality is shown "beyond a
reasonable doubt."
31

32. PRESUMPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE :
• Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, all laws must be intra-
vires the constitution.
• In India the approach of the courts while examining an enactment is to
start with the presumption of constitutionality and endeavour to
sustain the validity of the statute to the extent possible and strike it
down only when it is not possible to sustain the same.
32

33. Importance of presumption of
constitutionality.
• Deference to the acts of coordinate branches of government is both
appropriate and necessary to the proper functioning of the system
established by the constitution. While the fundamental principle of
judicial review dictates that the judiciary must have the last word in
constitutional matters, the other branches consider the matter first, and
their conclusions deserve deference.
• The presumption of constitutionality is grounded in a realistic
appreciation of the limits of judicial power. Using the strong
presumption of constitutionality as a rule of decision, by contrast,
allows the Court to forcefully state its doubts about an act's
constitutionality without overturning it.
33

34. • Strict adherence to the presumption of constitutionality helps minimize
even the appearance that the judiciary is making policy-based
decisions. Although the court routinely disclaims any role in judging
the wisdom of legislation, the disclaimer rings hollow when three
members of the bench accuse the majority of usurping legislative
power. And when the court's opinion does not articulate a compelling
basis for overruling a prior constitutional decision, the obvious
inference is that the change of heart resulted from a change in judges.
• Lasting social change must be based on consensus, not mandate, and
the branch of government entrusted with achieving consensus is the
legislature.
34

35. Case Laws:
• Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar : The Supreme Court observed that if
certain provisions of law construed in one way would make them
consistent with the Constitution and another interpretation would
render them unconstitutional, the court would lean in favour of the
former construction.
• New Delhi Municipal Counil v. State of Punjab, AIR (1997) SC 2847:
It was held that the principle of presumption of constitutionality of
legislation is however, not of infinite application, unnatural and forced
meaning cannot be put upon words to save the statutory provision.
35

36. Construction in favour of Advancement of
Object of the Statue.
36
• Whenever there are two possible interpretation to a statue the one that
subserves the objective of the statue should be accepted.
[Re Ahmed Nassar (1999) 8 SCC 473.]
• While interpreting a statue the court should try to sustain its validity
and give such meaning to the provisions which advance the object
sought to be achieved by the enactment.
[British Airways PLC v. Union of India, AIR (2002) SC 391 at 393]

37. Construction in favour of Justice and Reason.
37
• Construction which commends itself to justice and reason should
be adopted.
• Artificiality and Anomaly to be avoided
• Case laws :
1. State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh, (2003) 8 SCC
50 : AIR 2003 SC 3224 : (2001) 4 SCC 202.
2. Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh, (2002) 5 SCC 738.

38. Thank You!
38